Pages

Sunday, November 14, 2010

Fictive evil

The so-called problem of evil is probably the most popular objection to theism generally, and Christian theism in particular. The problem of evil is customarily subdivided into the logical problem of evil and the evidential problem of evil.

However, I’d like to redirect the discussion to the fictive problem of evil. By the fictive problem of evil I mean depictions of evil in fiction, such as films, plays, short stories, TV shows, and novels.

Unlike the real world, a novelist, screenwriter, or director has complete control over what happens in the fictive world he creates. Nothing happens that he doesn’t intend to happen. If he doesn’t want something to happen in his fictive world, he can prevent that event by not including it in the plot.

Yet very few moviemakers or novelists choose to make a perfect world. It lies within their power to completely eradicate evil from their fictive universe, to preempt the appearance of evil, yet the utopian genre is pretty rare.

Indeed, even most fictional utopias are disguised dystopias. For instance, a favorite theme in the SF genre is the futuristic utopia of social engineers. Only there’s a catch. In their efforts to make a better world, to eliminate what’s wrong with the world, they also eliminate certain things which make life worthwhile. They create a bland, predictable, antiseptic world. A world that’s too safe, too painless, to be satisfying. A world with tradeoffs, where the cost of a physically and emotionally risk-free existence is a boring existence. Emotionally repressed. Stultified.

For the moment part, moviemakers and novelists richly furnish their fictive worlds with a wide variety of evils. Indeed, they often focus on the sordid features of life. Or horrendous evil.

But even when they don’t accentuate extreme depravity or suffering, they may focus on all the little irritants and disappointments that characterize life in a fallen world. The minor daily frustrations. Indeed, that’s the stuff of comedy. Barking dogs. The obnoxious boss. Traffic jams. Meter maids. Officious in-laws. Petty bureaucrats. And so on and so forth.

So while philosophers and militant atheists gleefully catalogue, and duly deplore, the evils of a fallen world, creative artists are strikingly disinclined to improve on the world set before them. Apparently, an ideal existence is not their ideal.

A self-sacrificing redeemer-hero / anti-hero / reluctant-hero / unexpected-hero / who is introduced to combat/overcome/provide salvation from the fictive evil is also a frequent feature in various successful genres.

It's true that you can't have a story without conflict to resolve. Those who dismiss theism on account of the problem of evil are internally conflicted because any alternative must claim that there is no evil as an antithesis to a deity. So on the one hand, they claim that there is no God because there is evil and on the other hand they must claim that there is no evil because there is no God.

So their ostensible presupposition is that there is no God. However, their hidden presupposition is that there is evil - and they are guilty of it. In order to self-justify what they know they are guilty of, they claim that there is no God and that there is no evil that they are guilty of. In order to prove it to theists, they gladly assent to some evil outside themselves.

But the foil is in the flow of history that provides the essence from which our stories are derived. We can make no sense of our history aside from some examination of the conflict between good and evil.

Arguably the single least violent film ever made would be Hayao Miyazaki's film My Neighbor Totoro but even within that film while there is little interpersonal conflict the threat of death is still palpable for folks who are paying attention to the apparently plotless events in the film. I find it interesting that as a pantheist even Miyazaki's imagination of a kind of Eden still includes the potential of death. Of course Miyazaki is a pantheist rather than an atheist. Totoro is as close to a utopian genre as anyone can get and children's entertainment is arguably the only one in which anyone might dare to condone even the possibility of a utopian view. Yet even here there are intimations everywhere of a Fall.

"Will stories become obsolete in the new creation? Or is it just a reflection of our fallen state that the only stories we find interesting are those that involve conflict and sin?"

Since God himself wrote the story of our fallen world, of which our own stories are commentaries on his story (as it were), and also since the fallen world reflects the wisdom of God, I expect that even in the new creation we will value stories about our former fallenness.

On what basis do you conclude that Steve concluded that artistic expression is fundamentally motivated by a desire to depict ideal reality?

Perhaps I chose my words poorly. It's one of Steve's premises that I believe is unfounded, namely that we should expect artistic expression to depict ideal reality in the form of fundamental alterations to the fabric of reality.

For example, he states:

Unlike the real world, a novelist, screenwriter, or director has complete control over what happens in the fictive world he creates...Yet very few moviemakers or novelists choose to make a perfect world. It lies within their power to completely eradicate evil from their fictive universe, to preempt the appearance of evil, yet the utopian genre is pretty rare.

Why is it a noteworthy observation that artists very often don't "preempt the appearance of evil" in their works? Why is it surprising that artists don't "eradicate evil from their fictive universe" with more frequency? The assumptions that Steve seems to make about the nature and purpose of art and the motivations and methods of artists are baseless and disconnected from reality.

He further states:

...creative artists are strikingly disinclined to improve on [sic] the world set before them. An ideal existence is not their ideal.

What is so striking about this disinclination? Why should we expect art to diverge from the basic facts of our existence such as evil and adversity in all their sundry forms? Great stories often don't change the brute circumstances of the world set before us, but they often chronicle the ideal human response to said circumstances.

enchantednaturalist.com said... Why should we expect art to diverge from the basic facts of our existence such as evil and adversity in all their sundry forms? Great stories often don't change the brute circumstances of the world set before us, but they often chronicle the ideal human response to said circumstances.

You're missing the point. It's often argued against Christianity in general (by atheists for example) or Calvinism in particular (by Arminians, Semi-Pelagians, Open Theists et al. for example) that the existence of evil calls into question the existence of a good and wise God.

Steve's point I believe might be that from the Calvinistic point of view, God as providential author of history (or if you will, "HIS-story") includes the use of evil to produce the Greatest Story of all. What we call, "Redemptive History".

In other words, rather than evil being problematic for Calvinism, the fact that great stories always seem to involve great struggles, conflicts, adversities (etc) actually fits well with the Calvinistic conception of God as providential author of history. Since by it He provides (among other things) an opportunity for His people to develop and display great virtues in the face of either exceptional or mundane difficulties.

Because of what happened last Saturday, and being Filipino myself, I can't pass up an opportunity to use Manny Pacquiao's story as a case in point. He came out of extreme poverty to become a boxing legend. Just last Saturday he triumphed over Antonio Margarito who was a bigger and stronger opponent. Margarito is considered a "bad guy" by many boxing fans because he was allegedly caught attempting to use loaded gloves (with plaster of paris inside his wraps) before his fight against Shane Mosley. People like seeing "good" triumph over "evil" in the presence of great difficulties. That's why many action movies have the good guy almost losing to the bad guy right before the good guy finally wins. Similar to what happened during Christ's passion. Human story writers seem to unconsciously mimic Redemptive History in that way. When the Devil seemed to win against Christ by successfully killing him; ironically it was by Christ's death that He won the victory and defeated the Devil.

Btw, while I'm not dogmatic on any Millennial view, I wouldn't be surprised if Post-Millennialism ended up being true because of this very principle. In the end, Christ might conquer the world by His Grace through the successful evangelization by the Church (His mystical body) over the entire planet.

"Why is it a noteworthy observation that artists very often don't 'preempt the appearance of evil' in their works? Why is it surprising that artists don't 'eradicate evil from their fictive universe' with more frequency?"

They claim to find evil morally repellent, yet they don't find a world devoid of evil sufficiently appealing to make that the object of their imaginative efforts. At the end of the day they seem to be quite at home in this sordid world. Have no inclination to live in a sanitized world. Their protestations about natural and moral evil notwithstanding, they evidently find such a world far more attractive than a utopian world.

They claim to find evil morally repellent, yet they don't find a world devoid of evil sufficiently appealing to make that the object of their imaginative efforts...Their protestations about natural and moral evil notwithstanding, they evidently find such a world far more attractive than a utopian world.

Which brings me back to my original question: what leads you to expect that artists would exclude elements of conflict or evil in the stories they tell when such elements are universal to the human condition? Why would you expect artistic expression not to incorporate components such as these that so effectively evoke empathy, hope and other deeply-felt human emotions? Why is a perfect world a more logical aesthetic subject than the imperfect one in which we all find ourselves and with which we can all relate?

"Which brings me back to my original question: what leads you to expect that artists would exclude elements of conflict or evil in the stories they tell when such elements are universal to the human condition?"

Artists hardly limit themselves to the world as it stands. Indeed, a major appeal of fiction is to explore alternate possibilities.

"Why would you expect artistic expression not to incorporate components such as these that so effectively evoke empathy, hope and other deeply-felt human emotions?"

i) So you're now falling back on a soul-building theodicy. Yet that undercuts the argument from evil. In that case, evil is not gratuitous.

ii) Moreover, many artists don't focus on the socially-redeemer qualities of evil. They simply revel in depravity.

Artists hardly limit themselves to the world as it stands. Indeed, a major appeal of fiction is to explore alternate possibilities.

I agree that artists don't (and shouldn't) limit themselves to the world as it stands, but of all the infinite possible alternatives to what we experience in reality, why should we expect artists to specifically completely exclude elements of conflict or evil? Why is absolute perfection an inherent narrative ideal? I'm trying to understand your argument from a purely aesthetic perspective.

As an atheist, you’re attempting to make the most of the losing hand you’ve dealt yourself. So you play dumb.

ii) Instead of addressing my argument, you substitute a different, nearly opposite argument, which you find easier to attack.

I pointed out that despite protestations about how terrible the world is, artists almost never attempt to depict a perfect world.

You, by contrast, have tried to turn this around. Instead of addressing the question of why artists almost never depict a world devoid of evil, you pretend that I’m really asking why artists don’t spend all their time depicting a world devoid of evil. But that isn’t even close to the original question at issue.

Never to depict a perfect world is hardly equivalent to always depicting a perfect world.

iii) You also act as if noting the nature of the real world is somehow a counter to my point. But that’s obtuse. The point of fiction is that an artist isn’t confined to the terms of the world as it is. That’s the appeal of fiction. To transcend or escape what is actually happening. To project ourselves into a different situation. Like living more than one life.

Yet most artists seem to enjoy depicting a world with natural and moral evils. After all, that’s how they spend their time.

You’ve been trying your best to misrepresent my argument, the better to deflect my argument.

Absolutely not. You simply can't stomach having your argument challenged. You'd rather have your ego stroked by those who fail to look upon your argument with a critical eye.

In your attempt to present a unique formulation of a theological argument you've turned a blind eye to philosophy and science. (Surprise, surprise.)

I pointed out that despite protestations about how terrible the world is, artists almost never attempt to depict a perfect world.

And I pointed out your sophistry in creating a false dichotomy and implying that artists somehow maintain a double standard by not attempting to set their stories in perfect worlds more often than they do.

“Absolutely not. You simply can't stomach having your argument challenged. You'd rather have your ego stroked by those who fail to look upon your argument with a critical eye.”

You have yet to lay a glove on my actual argument.

“In your attempt to present a unique formulation of a theological argument you've turned a blind eye to philosophy and science. (Surprise, surprise.)”

A nice non sequitur. Philosophy and science have no direct bearing on fictitious worlds. Fictitious worlds have their own rules.

“And I pointed out your sophistry in creating a false dichotomy and implying that artists somehow maintain a double standard by not attempting to set their stories in perfect worlds more often than they do.”

No, you were the one who created a false dichotomy swapping out my actual argument, swapping in your substitute argument, then attacking a straw man.

But I thank you for demonstrating that you were impotent to deal with the real argument.

Philosophy and science have no direct bearing on fictitious worlds. Fictitious worlds have their own rules.

But they do have a direct bearing on why an artist may or may not choose to attempt to create fictitious worlds that depict perfection. Your argument rests on a baseless and bogus assertion about the nature of art and artistic expression.

Steve's theory about the use of evil in artistic expression (paraphrased):

"1. Artists protest evil in the real world.2. Artists possess the power to create worlds with whatever features they choose.3. For no reason other than because they have the power to do so, we should expect artists, more frequently than they actually do, to attempt to completely eliminate in their fictive worlds that against which they protest in the real world."

#3 is complete horse hockey and you know it, which is why you continue to evade any attempt to justify it. To what theory of art do you prescribe that supports such a cockamamy assertion? Certainly not Tolstoy's (which isn't the be-all, end-all, but is at least reasonable):

Art is a human activity consisting in this, that one man consciously by means of certain external signs, hands on to others feelings he has lived through, and that others are infected by these feelings and also experience them. (emphasis mine)

So one last time, Steve: why should we expect artists to ever eliminate any and all forms of conflict from their stories? Simply because they can is not an answer, for artists could write about nothing but a box of rocks if they wanted--but we don't expect that, do we?

“But they do have a direct bearing on why an artist may or may not choose to attempt to create fictitious worlds that depict perfection.”

No, science has no direct bearing on what a creative artist might write about. Many fantasy and soft SF novels and short stories are quite unscientific.

“So one last time, Steve: why should we expect artists to ever eliminate any and all forms of conflict from their stories?”

Why do some artists write SF novels and fantasy novels that are far removed from reality?

You’re also equating evil with “conflict,” which is a non sequitur. It’s quite possible to write a plot in which the characters face various challenges without introducing evil into the plot. Likewise, many things can be interesting (e.g. exploration), which don’t require evil.

Fact is, many artists clearly have an appetite for evil. It’s not merely the world they live in, but the world they feel at home in.